Bishop Schneider on Lefebvre
“Lefebvre showed great heroism. He was ready to lose everything in this life, all recognition & status, respect & good reputation in the Church. He even accepted the fact that he was considered a rebel …More
“Lefebvre showed great heroism. He was ready to lose everything in this life, all recognition & status, respect & good reputation in the Church. He even accepted the fact that he was considered a rebel, a schismatic. And he did it in order to continue to transmit the uncontaminated, complete Catholic truth, to preserve the Mass in all its Catholic richness. To that end, he resigned himself to becoming like a leper in the eyes of the world & the Church authorities. Other bishops condemned him, Rome turned away from him. I believe that in the future, he will also be raised to the honor of the altars. He gave up everything for Christ, everything, in human terms, just to transmit the Catholic faith and the liturgy of the Mass intact. This is a beautiful model for our times."
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
@The New Knights Templar What's noteworthy is Bishop Schneider's "official" position with Rome after the visitations of the SSPX seminaries was that SSPX "bears very evident, visible and spiritual fruit in edifying the Catholic Faith, in transmitting the integrity of Catholic Faith and liturgy and Christian life, as it was practiced during several centuries[.]"
One can read at the same link that …More
@The New Knights Templar What's noteworthy is Bishop Schneider's "official" position with Rome after the visitations of the SSPX seminaries was that SSPX "bears very evident, visible and spiritual fruit in edifying the Catholic Faith, in transmitting the integrity of Catholic Faith and liturgy and Christian life, as it was practiced during several centuries[.]"
One can read at the same link that SSPX published a statement of their own accord with Bishop Schneider's position on SSPX:
==================
Bishop Schneider argues that a "canonical connection" with the See of St. Peter is a requirement for being Catholic and that a canonical mission is required to have an apostolate. If he means legitimate submission to the Holy Father, we agree!
The Society has never refused any legitimate submission to the Pope, nor have they severed the bonds of the liturgy and the profession of the Faith. If the canonical situation became irregular, -- and the canonical mission is missing today -- it was not the fault of the SSPX but because, as Bishop Schneider himself argues, Rome unjustly deprived the SSPX of it.
Archbishop Lefebvre always claimed that the canonical sanctions were invalid because unjust; he was refused an appeal. Bishop Schneider considers (see below) the case in a hypothetical future where the SSPX -- then canonically regularized -- might have to return to canonical irregularity if pressured by Rome to abandon an essential point of what it stands for. It is then possible to be Catholic despite an apparent rupture of canonical norms!
The Society has always relied on the supplied jurisdiction the Church provides in such emergency situations so that the faithful are not deprived of the grace of the sacraments.Bishop Schneider states that canonical recognition would be a way for the Holy See to finally take account of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's appeal against the unjust suppression of the SSPX in 1975.
This is a very elegant way to present the solution. And it is true. However Bishop Schneider does not ignore that the reason for this unjust suppression and persecution of the Society since then (and of traditional Catholicism as a whole) has its precise origins in disagreements on the Faith, "because of this deep crisis of Faith inside the Church," as he puts it, and its most sacred expression: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
One can read at the same link that SSPX published a statement of their own accord with Bishop Schneider's position on SSPX:
==================
Bishop Schneider argues that a "canonical connection" with the See of St. Peter is a requirement for being Catholic and that a canonical mission is required to have an apostolate. If he means legitimate submission to the Holy Father, we agree!
The Society has never refused any legitimate submission to the Pope, nor have they severed the bonds of the liturgy and the profession of the Faith. If the canonical situation became irregular, -- and the canonical mission is missing today -- it was not the fault of the SSPX but because, as Bishop Schneider himself argues, Rome unjustly deprived the SSPX of it.
Archbishop Lefebvre always claimed that the canonical sanctions were invalid because unjust; he was refused an appeal. Bishop Schneider considers (see below) the case in a hypothetical future where the SSPX -- then canonically regularized -- might have to return to canonical irregularity if pressured by Rome to abandon an essential point of what it stands for. It is then possible to be Catholic despite an apparent rupture of canonical norms!
The Society has always relied on the supplied jurisdiction the Church provides in such emergency situations so that the faithful are not deprived of the grace of the sacraments.Bishop Schneider states that canonical recognition would be a way for the Holy See to finally take account of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's appeal against the unjust suppression of the SSPX in 1975.
This is a very elegant way to present the solution. And it is true. However Bishop Schneider does not ignore that the reason for this unjust suppression and persecution of the Society since then (and of traditional Catholicism as a whole) has its precise origins in disagreements on the Faith, "because of this deep crisis of Faith inside the Church," as he puts it, and its most sacred expression: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Absolutely....as comprehensively explained elsewhere, Lefebvre's duty before God as an Archbishop, head of a canonically erected "society of common life"(later referred to as a "society of apostolic life") was to preserve for the Church and for those spiritually entrusted to him, the very Traditions and Patrimony which he had received from the Church of the Ages, and for which the SSPX had been …More
Absolutely....as comprehensively explained elsewhere, Lefebvre's duty before God as an Archbishop, head of a canonically erected "society of common life"(later referred to as a "society of apostolic life") was to preserve for the Church and for those spiritually entrusted to him, the very Traditions and Patrimony which he had received from the Church of the Ages, and for which the SSPX had been juridically erected.
Not to have done so would have been to participate in the Modernist suppression of that same Patrimony which God had mandated the prelates of the Catholic Church to preserve and pass on to future generations under pain of sin for failure to do so.
Not to have done so would have been to participate in the Modernist suppression of that same Patrimony which God had mandated the prelates of the Catholic Church to preserve and pass on to future generations under pain of sin for failure to do so.